Slamming Dumbama & Reid (his son Rory running for Gov won't even use this last name) is good for jobs (thereby reducing unemployment) and the economy.

Sen Reid helped to shut down development of Yucca Mountain which would have been Billions of $ for NV. He is bad for NV, bad for the USA & bad for the World!

You're disgusted and a DumbA$$

Whew!

Who's running the buy one get one free special on tin foil hats around here today?

Hay MongoVegas, your point is??? I guess we should re-elect the stooges that REALLY got us in this mess??? The AD make the case for the DEMS, the neo-cons have no solution just talk. The reason they have no solutions is they want to finish the job of distorying the middle class, they didn't get enough of us to the unemployment line with the last administration.

Why is it that about the only thing I am struck by is just how apt the moniker Mongo is based on this one lone post?

Speaking of 'stooges', here's a 6-way that I wouldn't want to see, but that would be a pretty good match-up:

Larry, Curley, and Moe tag-teaming Sarah, Sharon, and Michelle.

Eeeek! Yow!

Mongo you need to move on down the page a little. There's a couple of guys there called Daniel and DL13. Their waiting for Suzan from the previous post. Talk to them and maybe you can get in on the special on non stick tinfoil that the manager down at the Piggly Wiggly promised them. Talk real nice and I'll bet he'll throw in a bonus card... BTW Drive By you just destroyed another keyboard

Funny....During the last 6-8 months of the Bush administration we were losing 755,000 jobs a month (with record spending and record deficits)...And not a peep out of republicans about unemployment. Obama stops the bleeding to 105,000 a month and suddenly it's the only issue republicans want to talk about...

If republicans are so concerned about the unemployed, why did they just kick them in the gut and deny these struggling families the much needed unemployment extensions?

Not to mention the 8 years of legalized gambling on Wall St. cut into Nevada's gaming industry.

Spot on Dis in PA!

Garrison...please be careful with telling the truth to the trolls. The tin foil doesn't contain the spilled brain matter when their head explodes.

dbo...I really needed that good belly laugh. thanks!

Red...if I didn't know better, I'd think mongo vegtable head was really the rat pak trying to weasel back in the game.

IR...I made the unfortunate journey down the page to meet daniel and dl. The only thing I observed was those two waiting in line at the local walmart behind mongo brain fart to hump sarah palins leg while she signed someone elses book. There isn't enough tin foil on the planet to contain these radioactive, braindead bozos.

No doubt Chris...

Somewhere in Ohio the war room is up and running in a basement and Cheeto's are being consumed in large quantities!

Who does dangerfield & Mixed Nuts REMIND you of?

Sarah, Sharon, and Michelle, they can put their heads together and make a rock pile.

Reading through this afternoon's postings here, I am compelled to join the moderates and conservatives here that are clearly outnumbered. I realize that the left has been misinformed and are constantly repeating that which is not true. You all continue to believe that the Republicans created the situation we are in now. I am forced to bring out those darn numbers again.You all are always looking for facts. So here are some:

January 2001 – October 2007 4.8 million jobs created. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

November 2007. Democrats take control of Congress and...

Net jobs created drops to 2,866,000 for the period 2001-2008. (That indicates 2 million jobs lost after the election).

___________________________

Dow Jones Industrial Average

January 2001. DJIA opens at 10,073

October 5, 2007 DJIA at 14,000

November 9 2007 DJIA at 13,042

Democrats in control of Congress and...

January 2, 2009 DJIA at 9,034

_____________________

GDPGrowth

2001: 1.1%, 2002 1.8%, 2003, 2.5%, 2004 3.6%, 2005 3.1%, 2006 2.7%, 2007 2.1%

Democrats take control of Congress and

GDP Growth 2008 0.4%

_________________________

Unemployment

2001-2007

4.76%, 5.78%, 5.99%, 5.53%, 5.08%, 4.63%, 4.61%

Democrats take control of Congress and

Unemployment 6.3% in 2008.

Current 9.7%

Can you identify the trend here?

Source of these numbers: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(There was also the report by a Congressional Economic Committee issued in 2007 blasting President Bush for only creating 58,000 jobs a month. They were comparing his poor performance to President Clinton. I thought that report was especially amusing in light of the job creation figures today. I wonder if they will issue a similar report this year…..)

If you'd like the list of who was responsible for the financial crisis, I can share that with you as well.

when will obama startbeing president.if dont want to take responsibility for the economy instead of continously blameing bush ,then he should have never ran for pres; the democrats were in charge of congress before he took over and yet unemployment is stiill 14% in nev. all obama is doing is costing jobs. he needs to leave louisiana alone ,there goes thousands of jobs . filing law suit against arizona costing millions of dollars. when the maj. of the people want the law. and there are many states that are going to follow arizona.why are other states sticking there noses in arizonas bus. anyway half of the democrats dont want obama haveing anything to do with there election chances dont that tell you anything. obamas numbers are dropping every month. are you just to proud to admit you didn;t get what you voted for. 13.5 trillion nat. debt. reid is behind in the runnings and his apponent is not the brightest but it just shows how much people are fed up with how the dems are not following the people.

The democrats have not, and still do not have, "control" of congress. The numbers don't tell you the full story. In the house, the democrats have passed hundreds of bills which languish in the senate. If the dems controlled the senate those bills would now be law. This hasn't happened, not because of the filibuster mind you, but because the RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans obstruct majority rule by employing Rule22 which allows MINORITY CONTROL! The minority (41 senators) can shelve a bill forever if they just hang together and never change their votes. The majority has no leverage to make any of them change their votes, so the minority wins in the Senate. For the Democrats to have "control" of congress they have to have a super majority of at least 60 who will vote as a block, they have never had that super majority since before nixon. So much for your ideas on who has been in control.

Hi, Paul.

Okay. Then change my wording "control of Congress" to Democrats had the majority.

Possibly some of those bills would be passed if the Democrats moved a little center and included some center provisions that some of the Republicans could or would vote for. I wondered how votes went when Republicans were in the majority, didn't spend a lot of time, but looked it up and found that most major legislation was passed with real bipartisan votes during 2001-2008. It wasn't as ridiculously partisan as it is now.

In any case, you have to admit six out of the eight years of the Bush Administration, things were pretty good. That was really the point I was trying to make.

Carlyss man, It is very frustrating, I agree.

Candice,

I feel compelled to inform you that our government is not a nimble skif; but rather a ginormous oil tanker (irony intended),...economies don't change in 30 days, 90 days or even 180 days,...so you can warp your twisted numbers however YOU see them; but the wheels of stagnation were set in motion by the POLICIES of your Saint and Lord - George W Bush. Who never met a tax break he couldn't fund and never met a vendetta for pappy he wouldn't sink our country into fighting.

You know the saying, there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

Clara,

That's the other point of interest that has taken over this board today. President Obama is criticized a bit and you all explode; defend the indefensible, and if you don't happen to like the facts - you call them lies.

You can believe that President Bush's policies brought the economy down if you want to. I contend that the recession began when the Democrats became the majority and it's spiraled ever since. Except I'm backed up by facts provided by the BLS and Congressional reports. How do you explain the timing? Coincidence?

Economies do not usually change quickly, but most economies recover in a reasonable amount of time if they are given the environment to do so. The current Administration and Congressional majority are not business friendly, and because their policies are freaking every business owner out, the economy, which should have recovered a time ago, is still struggling and might be heading for a second dip.

Don't you remember, Clara, when things were much better than they are now? That was 2001 - 2007 by the numbers.

I would hardly characterize my response to you as 'exploding'. And if you thought 2001-2007 was grandiose; well, you've a touch of the feeble mindedness that mere facts and conversation won't be able to help you with. Again, I can round up an entire set of numbers to underscore the prosperity under Clinton and that the decline really begat with policies set in motion by Repubs ending THAT era,...

Economies ebb and flow; but the policies behind them cause the heartburn. Tell me this, why didn't Bush just fund the wars? Who CUTS taxes while waging two wars? Where were the War Bonds? His advice,..."Nothing to see here folks, just go shopping". Really, you are defending that?

I would like to answer your questions, "why didn't Bush just fund the wars?", Bush just CAN"T fund the wars, he needs Congress and the Senates approval, remember Reid saying that, "The War is LOST!", sorry that wasn't an answer, the answer is that Congress and the Senates has to approve it.

"Who CUTS taxes while waging two wars?" Hmmmmmmmm..........did you enjoy your 3% in your paycheck? But do you know the cost per month for the Wars? Compare that to the HANDOUT people get in our social programs.

"Where were the War Bonds?" LOL, sorry to laugh, but War Bonds ended a long time ago. They're called EE Bonds and that started in the 80's I believe.

I wouldn't say the period was "grandiose." We have 9.5% unemployment. 12 million people are out of work. They are losing their homes, their savings and are becoming demoralized. I would certainly prefer a period of 4-5% unemployment, positive GDP growth and a stronger stock market than what we are experiencing now. Wouldn't you? The policies of the current administration are not working, Clara. Many of the policies are band-aids that will not have and did not have a sustainable result.

Yes, the period under President Clinton was in fact very prosperous. I wonder if that had anything to do with Republicans sweeping the House and Senate in the mid terms? (You won't agree with that, I'm sure). After the mid terms, President Clinton moved more center and got more done.

I liked President Clinton, actually.

The funding of the wars were done in an "off-balance" sheet way, which was wrong. Where were the war bonds? The Republicans and George blew it. They did. They ran up deficits, they lost their way and they were voted out in '07. I, unlike you, can admit when "my" side screws things up.

Since 75% of the economy is driven by the consumer, assuring people and encouraging them to go shopping isn't as absurd as you make it sound. President Obama encouraged the same not to long ago (to buy cars, appliances, energy efficient windows).... Unfortunately, folks can't go shopping. They're out of work.

There are many reasons the financials exploded and for the recession. President Bush and the Republican party were not the sole culprits.

Candace,

Frankly, when the Republicans that control the money saw that the Dems were gaining control, they went and purposely tanked the economy to make them look bad, since Almost ALL corporation owners and CEOs are Republican, this means a lot of people intentionally took their money out of the economy, and have since refused to put it back in, hoarding it. The claim the excuse of "Uncertainty of the Market." The only certainty in the market is that if you have the money, then you control the market. And they certainly do. The real reason is to grease the skids for the Repubs to come back to power, which will mean lower taxation, fewer regulations and less enforcement of the ones that there are, with the things like the Banking Collapse, Oil spills, Mine Collapses and tens to hundreds of Millions trapped into low paying jobs because that way the people with the money get to keep their money. The Republicans would love the days of slave labor to return, because that way all you have to do is feed and house the slaves, barely provide clothing, and they cannot challenge their rule.

You seem to forget the arrogance with which Bush trampled the Constitution, lied to get us into his war of choice and enacted his Executive Statements on anything and everything that he could. You seem to forget the Republicans saying that Deficits don't matter, and seem to be ignoring the way that the Republicans, in lockstep, have worked to subvert anything that the Obama Admin tries to do. What happened to the PayGo that the Repubs dismantled when they were in power, and now, after squandering what was a decent surplus, and the Repubs took the deficit up to 11.5 trillion, now that Obama has had to add 1.5 trillion to that to sustain the economy, the Repubs are NOW screaming PayGo and Bring Down The Deficit. Slightly two faced there, are they not? Why are the corporations not hiring when their profits have INCREASED by 44%? Why, since the Repubs gained power back in 95 did all the corporations suddenly start cutting every corner that they could, shipped out their jobs and held wage increases to nil, even when their profits soared?? Why was that money not put back into the businesses and wages for Americans? Could it be the Republicans, at the beck and call of the Corporations turned a blind eye, as long as the money flowed into their coffers??

Presently we have a President that is not business unfriendly, but instead sees the mess we are in and is trying to fix it, and presently, the businesses have the lowest tax rates ever, are less regulated, and keeping more profits than ever, and so something needs to be done to restore the equality between those hiring and those hired. Employment is a contract between boss and workers, the workers do their best for their employer, and the bosses make sure that the workers are properly paid and taken care of, this is just basic business sense. Sadly, the new crops of CEOs only see employees as costs to be cut, not realizing that every dollar they short the workers, even though they put it into their own pockets, is a dollar less that the employees have to buy their products. The Corporations have sucked the lifeblood out of America, just as they have the rest of the world, and all the governments are now trying to reign them in. Not anti-business, but seeking a proper balance, as everybody can see that the top few have gotten more than obscenely wealthy, while a greater and greater percentage of the workers and middle class are heading deeper and deeper into poverty. The obvious answer is that the businesses need to be re-regulated and their taxes increased, especially on those profits that are not put back into the companies and on people with over $1million a year income. If people can 'get by' on less than $10k/yr, then those individuals making over a million a year can certainly deal with a few hundred thousand a year less. It is to the point where the poor CANNOT go any lower, while the rich have gotten richer at the same time, so it is time for them to bear the real burden of the failing economy, that or reinvest it in Hiring, not the stock market, that is just a form of gambling and you can only consistently make money there if you are already wealthy. When a single company is making tens of billions of dollars a year in profits, above and beyond all costs, wages and obscene compensation for the Management class, then either that company is seriously cutting corners or is overcharging/underpaying for it's products.

It has gotten to the point that Governments all over the world should make any and all Corporations illegal and redistribute that wealth to the individual companies that had belonged to the corporations, so that THEY can hire and expand, keeping enough to eliminate all of the deficits run by the Governments. Literally Hundreds of Trillions of dollars are tied up in the Corporations, and they could right the world economy in a heartbeat. However, they make a LOT more money off from the interest on Governments deficits that they have no reason to change it. The world is in great danger of being owned and run entirely by the Corporations, rather than the other way around. After all, Corporations ONLY exist to profit, by any means, and are the exact opposite of Government. Government exists to take care ALL of the People, where Corporations exist only to profit a small handful them and use the rest as labor or consumer base. Few Corporations act in a Community Service way, working with the communities and making sure that their workers are well cared for and paid, they exist but are by far in the minority. Corporations, in general, are pure predators, and will adapt to circumvent rules, laws and regulations as they can, and just like in nature, when they run out of prey, they turn on themselves and create destruction around them. Since they have tapped us all out, the Predator has very little to prey on, and so we see things falling apart, drastically. This is why we used to have such high tax rates on excessive wealth, this is why we had firm regulation of the Banks and Corporations, this is why the US USED to have an extremely strong economy, was the proper levels of taxation and regulation. However, Reagan destroyed all of that, and ever since the wealth has been flowing one way, from the poor and middle class to the rich, without them upholding their end of the contract between Employer and Employee.

Yes I blame the Republicans, I have watched, and I have an extremely good memory. There have been times I have been against the Dems, but much more rarely than the Repubs. The Repubs are pure Predator, the Dems are much more Omnivore, generally are self made if wealthy and Tend to have the Public Good in mind. The Repubs generally come from family money and have devolved into ranting Corporate Mouthpiece Apologists and have given everything to the already rich and thus lost the trust of most thinking Americans. Neither party is perfect, however, the Dems are much closer and tend to have cleaner hands where money is involved, not totally, but by several degrees they are MUCH better for America than the Repubs.

B. Honest.

Holy smokes. Where do I begin?

The Republicans did not intentionally and purposely drive the economy into the tank just to make the Democrats look bad. It was not an evil right wing conspiracy. A failing economy does not help anyone, including Corporations, CEO's, etc. Corporations, CEO's and the wealthy do not intentionally create an environment that separates them from their own money just to make a point.

In my opinion, it is the Democrats who prefer to keep the people "in their place." The basic philosophy of the left is that people can't make decisions on their own. They need the government to do it for them. They protect underperforming schools. They demonize those who are successful, rather than lift up the ones who don't believe they can be. The poorest places in the country have been consistently run by the Democrats (Detroit comes to mind, and Illinois).

True, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars. The reason they are though is because they have no idea what's coming for them. Taxes will be higher next year by the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts.The Democrats are talking about extending some, but no one knows what the outcome will be. The cost of the health care bill is increasing every day each time the CBO puts batteries in their calculators. There's talk that if Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate, the Democrats will push through card check, cap and trade and other expensive legislation before the new congress is seated.

The Republicans are not obstructing. They are voting against policy they oppose. And look! Turns out they've been right. They voted against the $787 billion stimulus....and the bill did not create jobs or decrease the unemployment rate. They voted against Cash for Clunkers because it was a solution that was only a band aid. Once the tax credit was gone, sales dropped and did not come back. They voted against the Healthcare bill because it was too restrictive, unclear, and costly. As time goes by, and the provisions are known.....it's becoming clearer that it will be restrictive, costly and doesn't cover that many people. And on.....

I have a pretty good memory too, and while I know the Republicans messed up, spent too much money and made some bad decisions, I also know that the policies your side is putting forth today are hurting the economy and the American people more than they are helping.

I know you are passionate about this country and your politics. You didn't really mean you think there should be redistribution of wealth, did you? In my ideal world, every one would have the opportunity to get a decent education, be inspired and driven to become successful and most would be equal by their own efforts.

Candace

Your last paragraph describes my ideal world as well, I did the whole raise myself with my bootstraps thing. Right now the overly wealthy have a near monopoly on finance, and are plainly withholding it freom it's proper use, it is not just with the change of Administrations, it has been happening for some time, which is why there is such a huge gap between even the middlin rich and the Uber Wealthy, let alone between the top and bottom tier of incomes. When one individual owns enough to support 300K FAMILIES at higher a standard of living than they are at now, for a year, then something is desperately wrong. Frankly, I do not care as much about the individual wealthy, it is more the Corporations themselves, and yes, I know that much of the economy presently depends on those corporations, but at the same time, they give very little in comparison to how much they take, and retain. Removing the Corporate level of management, perhaps splitting them into their constituent companies so that they can do something useful, such as tracking interstate, local and national trade, at much lower wages than they receive now, would go a long ways towards restoring some balance. Having corporations owning many companies, and taking all of the profit from them, not returning it in meaningful ways, is draining the country dry. Putting it into the Stock Market helps the economy not at all, it is merely money being hoarded and drawing interest in a manner of speaking. It does nothing to feed the common man who is trying his best to feed his family. If the Banks would lend again, reasonably, then there are many out there that would be eager to start their own businesses. I had a successful business, yet because it was not a "Standard Business Type" (I was a historical reproduction sword and armor maker) it was nearly impossible for me to get a business loan to expand and increase my hiring. Swords are a Huge Market, and I would be sitting very pretty right now if I had been able to get such a loan. But I found, the hard way, that to succeed that way one must already HAVE the money before they will loan to you. So America is being strangled, and has been, by the Banks and the other Corporations that are hoarding their monies. We could be doing soooo much, but the Corporations and bigger businesses want to keep most people poor so that they will be willing to work for low wages. I HAVE sat in on large business training type meetings, and heard this tactic described, in circular terms to be sure, but the message was clear, keep your pay low and it will be easier for EVERY Business to hire at low wages. The classes were held by the State Chamber of Commerce, a very Republican bastion for the Corporations and Businesses. I have heard it from their own mouths that this is their tactics and game plan, I was sickened as you may imagine.

Part of why the Stimulus bill did Not work as designed, was because the Dems watered it down, adding Repub sections and removing some of the better portions at Repub behest in order to get a bi-partisan vote, the Repubs went and voted against it anyways, same with the HCR. yes, the Dems were also trying to keep their "Blue Dogs" (DINOs) along with them, which was not smart either, but politically needful. So no, the stimulus did not go as well as we wanted, but it DID slow down the job losses and has kept state governments from collapsing, which HAS been a benefit.

But crying that the bank is breaking and refusing to spend the money that is Needed to get things back to a balance does threaten us worse than the effects of the small percentage of the deficit that would be added to it. If we can spend a couple trillion on the wars, then we can and SHOULD spend a couple of trillion on the economy. Once the economy is back on track, then the deficit can be dealt with from a better position and not break America in the doing. Taking us back to a 1960's level tax rate, making ALL income, whether from wages, bonuses or investment subject to the SAME tax rates will be a much fairer way to deal with the deficit. Once it is paid down then the tax levels can be reconsidered. But the rich are not contributing their fair share in all reality. yes, they pay a higher percentage, but they NEVER have to worry about eating and making sure that their children are fed, housed, clothed etc. And the lower classes should be able to find work that will pay an actual living wage where one adult can raise a family comfortably. If this means less corporate profits, so be it, the tax base will be more fairly spread then. When the bosses make 200 to 3000 times the wages of their AVERAGE employee, there is something dreadfully wrong, and taxation is one way to make the money be spread more evenly, not because it is taken away directly from the rich, but in order to lower their tax rate, they have to pay more of their 'profits' to their workers. Having owned a business, I am well versed in this. With my workers I took one share, each worker one share, and the shop got one share after all the bills and materials etc. were paid. They worked as hard as I did, why should they be paid any less?? Yes, they were being trained on the job, swordmaking is sort of that way, but they still labored as hard as I did, so I paid them equally. If the CEO's and Corporations and Big Businesses and Banks would see the value in such, I dont expect them to be quite as magnanimous as I was, but still, if they brought the difference in wages down to 1-10 or 1-15 (the Bible states 1-5 is correct) then there would not be all this angst and devastating poverty and there would be a lot more jobs about.

In my ideal world, everybody would get a good education, be inspired and driven to be able to be successful and be on an even stature with their employers, or, be able to start their own businesses and hire people themselves. But presently we are a downtrodden populace held at the mercy of those with the money, and they are NOT sharing, lending, or allowing people to get ahead no matter how hard they work. If it takes a massive redistribution of wealth, then so be it, I would prefer less draconian methods, but the Corporations, and the Republicans and their Lobbyists are blocking any way that the present Administration tries to get us out of this hole, without offering any other solutions other than the tried and failed tax cuts and deregulation. The very poorest states are all presently Republican, their populaces are held down to extremely low wages, unless you happen to be in corporate management The places that used to be Republican and have turned Dem are the ones where the Repubs ran things into the ground and the people elected Dems to fix it. The problem they run into is that the people trying to fix a situation have to fight against the people that are profiting from the status quo. Those getting rich from a situation will toss a lot of money in lawyers and lobbyists to prevent any change. And THAT is the problem we have to deal with.

As a quick example here, if one took that $20B from the BP Relief Fund and divided it equally, you could support 400K families at 50K for a year. Warren Buffet is trying to get the very rich to give up 50% of their wealth to charity, he estimates some $600B could come of that. If that was distributed, at $50K/family that would support some 12M families at $50k for a year. And that does not even start to count Corporate wealth, which is far far more than that. Presently I make less than $10K/yr with SSI and manage to barely get by with my GF on unemployment. Right now we, together make less than $30k/yr At that level that $600B would cover some 16M families at bare living levels. And we are only talking about the top 2% of the wealthiest of us. Something HAS to change.

Obama ,Reid and Pelosi do not listen to the voice of the people. Jamming an extremely unpopular health care bill filled with lies of what they promised, over budget that will pull us further in debt. Opposing Arizona which is drowning with crime and the Democrats care nothing about that -just the votes they see as potential Democratic votes. The people in the gulf they care nothing about and just try to stop drilling by moratorium that 2 judges have overturned. These three are arrogant ,Socialist leaning, and most narcissistic our country has ever seen and God help us to throw these bums out in 2010 ans 2012

Except John: by all measures, crime is down by the border.

Had connection problems last night....if you're still around -

Banks are certainly tight and I know several small business people who are at the mercy of the lending officer at the community bank. They are actually being told that since they have good credit, they can't get a loan. Some were advised to skip a payment so they would be more eligible for the lending programs mandated by the government. How absurd is that?

I've said before the money floating around is mind boggling. I agree that real people don't need and are hard pressed to justify millions of dollars in pay....CEO's, politicians, athletes, movie stars. Most do re-route good amounts of that money to charitable causes. I wish most of them would direct the money to those in need in our country, rather than overseas.

I'm tempted to share a little secret, but be assured, the capital markets are in fact vital to regular people even more so than the extremely wealthy. Real people invest their money and use dividends and interest to send their kids to college, to supplement their fixed retirement incomes, to take care of elderly parents, to donate to their churches and to try to keep pace with the rate of inflation so that they and their families are not struggling in later years.

As John comments above, I don't feel as if the President, Speaker and Reid are listening to all of the people. This country is split almost in 2. We have to find a middle ground. Otherwise, we're doomed.

I admire Warren Buffett. He should give his money away. He should pay more in taxes --- he can always write a check to the IRS for any amount he wants. You know a sizable chunk of the money he used to fund the foundation with Bill Gates goes overseas.

I

Newday -

Violent crime is at the border. Identity theft, tax evasion, stealing public services without paying for them, driving without licenses, harboring, and exploitation of workers runs rampant throughout the state. It's crazy that the office of the President would sue a state. Has there ever been a precedent?

B Honest Are you deliberately misspelling Candice's name?

Candice I do believe that you believe that there is no right wing conspiracy to hoard the money. But after three decades of "false prosperity" followed by a recession bordering on a depression which goes on unabated because no one has faith in the economy anymore, you have to wonder. Don't you? Haven't the capitalists essentially gone on strike? Didn't the banks take us to the brink and then demand to be re-capitalized with our borrowed money and no strings attached? They claim publically that they didn't want the government money, but instead of then lending it out into the economy they invested it in wallstreet and other markets. It is not well reported but the TARP program is small change compared to the zero interest "loans" the Federal Reserve made available to the same banks that took our money and refuse to loan it into the American economy.

Ayn Rand would be so proud to see that Atlas is Shrugging.

Hi, Paul.

I agree that the capitalists are hoarding money. I think we disagree as to why. I believe the uncertainty and downright fear about legislation and policy, and the fragility of the recovery has turned businesses into deer in the headlights. I don't believe corporations are seeking revenge for the purpose of politics.

Prosperity is almost always false. In the late 20's the stock market roared on borrowed money. The internet and technology bubble of the 90's was no longer based on price/earnings but price/sales and even price/property. More recently, the housing boom advanced by unreasonably low interest rates and creative financing.

I thought one of the promises made by the Treasury and Federal Reserve regarding TARP was that strings were going to be attached. I thought one of the deals was that the banks were supposed to take that money and lend it out. Why isn't the government following through on that? The mortgage modification programs set up by the government have helped very few home owners. Most modifications defaulted again within a year. Treasury Secretary Geithner has relationships with the bankers. Can't he figure it out?

Or is the Administration just oblivious to what's really going on?

Yes, banks are making a fortune borrowing money from the Fed at zero, investing it, and when they do loan it out at 4 to 5%.

Really, what happened to the rules that was going to make TARP successful? I get the feeling policies are put in place, speeches are made....and then the politicians walk away, grinning and thinking...."well that takes care of that..." In the meantime all of these programs are not working, and Americans continue to suffer.

This is one of the problems. The Government tries to help. Policies are made. More agencies are set up to supervise and regulate. And the more things stay the same.

Uncertainty? The greatest risk is not taking a risk. It is a self fulfilling prophecy of doom for those institutions which have established that they are too big to be allowed to fail to then say that they are afraid that they might make a little less in profits next year so they won't even try. Debt and "full faith and credit" are not just the life's blood of this economy but the very foundation for the value of our currency. If the bankers, who really cannot lose, tell you that they don't want to do their simple job of lending for fear they might "lose", even though they have insurance, and you believe that rationale, illogical as it is, then you demonstrate that you condone their choice to go on strike and lie about why.

If they continue to refuse to work as capitalists, they are inviting their replacement, at least temporarily, by socialists.

TARP: first tranche under Bush and Paulson, no strings at all. If the intention was to encourage lending then why didn't the government simply say that we will only accept re-payment from profits made off of LENDING and lending only? Seems simple enough to require that. Never happened.

Candice, (My GREAT Apology for the misspelling, it was Not intentional!)

I agree with you firmly that we DO need to find a middle ground, for sure. Having one party in super majority is not a good thing, we NEED to have both sides bringing their best ideas to the table. Sadly, I have not seen any real new ideas put forth by the Repubs, so that leaves us with the Dems by default.

I realize that many people do gain a benefit from the capital markets, my first wife had stocks etc. and that did help us buy a house and get my business going with the purchase of one major piece of machinery. So I do understand. My major complaint is that the banks and Corporations are able to manipulate the markets to some extent, legal or no, and so many people who try to play the market lose lots of money. A lot of that is from inexperience, I know, but the big boys always seem to come out on top, especially the trading 'banks'.

I think the President, Pelosi and Reid are listening to more people than you think. Health care reform is something that Republicans in the past have tried to champion, but they saw it this time as something that would score too many political points for the Dems, so they intentionally loaded it up and watered it down, and Still did not vote for it. A majority of people, growing majority mind you, approve of the HCR. The Dems have actually gotten a great many things through Congress that benefit the people.

The right wing talk radio and cable folks keep telling horriffic lies about some of these programs along with Palin etc. and That has polarized a portion of the people, one of the recent Repub losers to the used teabags (another polarizing factor, they were funded initially by a Repub and whipped up by Rush/Beck/Palin) said plainly that these people are the major polarizing factor today, NOT Obama, Pelosi and Reid, but his own party and the talk media. Quite honest he was, and I have to respect him for that, that is one Repub I would probably actually vote for. Presently the Repub Party Leadership has pushed the polarization, making the Repubs vote in lockstep, NOT voting according to the needs or wants of the people, but to score cheap political points by trying to thwart everything Dem or Obama. They have as much as said so, several times.

I am not, however, saying that the Dems are all angels, far from it, but I DO truly believe that they are trying hard to fix what is terribly broken right now, and the Repubs are refusing to play. I DO , Firmly, believe that the Repubs are merely trying to make the Dems look bad, in a bid for power again. I also feel that it is going to backfire on them, they have made some terrible gaffes: Barton, Steele, Boehner, Angle, Paul etc. that are going to come back to haunt them in November. The Repubs have been plainly, bluntly and blatantly obstructionist on things that the majority of the people DO want, And that as well will come back to haunt them.

I truly wish that the Repubs would come to the table in an honest fashion and work for the people, but presently, with the huge, and now virtually unlimited amounts of money available to them from the Corporations the Repubs are more beholden than ever to those same Corporations. Not that the Dems are innocent of this as well, but the past has shown that the Repubs do get a lot more from the Corporations and banks than the Dems do. The Bush years also show fairly plainly that the Repubs do not care for 'the little people'. Very little was passed in the Public's interest, most of what they did gave a lot more to the Corporations, Banks and Uber Wealthy than they did to the rest of the populace. Yes, they cut some taxes, but they did that during wartime, and ballooned the deficit to terrible proportions, which they now scream that the sky is falling when Pres Obama added just 10% of their spending to it, and part of that was really programs that Bush had already initiated, Obama just took the blame.

Candice: I am originally from San Diego, get there often and am well aware of border issues. The fact is that people are buying into the Fox News hype about the border, on all measures it is down. Read: "Setting the Record Straight on Border Crime" Center for American Progress. And if you don't like that article, there are many others. And yes, the Feds have sued states before, they have also sent troops into states before, remember the Civil Rights era? Whomever was President at this moment would have to sue Arizona to protect the Feds reserved power. Again, if you want to make an argument that the Feds have not done the best job with immigration, you would not get a debate from me, but at least, let's stick to facts and not emotion. If you make an argument that President Obama alone is responsible for not protecting the borders, then you are being willfully disingenuous.

This great country was certainly created by those who were willing to take risks. Risk taking is the core of our economy and life in general, I believe.

It's the pendulum of extremes. The financial sector took on too many risks. That blew up, so they swing to risk adverse. Greed runs rampant then swings to fear. An oil rig blows up - so we have to shut them all down. Apathy then overreaction. Was it always this way?

I personally, being of a capitalistic mind, think no company should be deemed to big to fail. One company goes out, the surviving competition picks up their business and gets stronger.

Nothing seems rational and logical to me anymore, Paul. I'm frustrated to all get out that banks and corporations are in freeze mode. I'm frustrated regulators weren't doing their jobs. I'm just sharing what I hear from bankers, investors, business owners and folks who are unemployed, and I'm telling you businesses feel "a boot on their neck" and perceive a run away legislature. And bankers --- well, they were always a bit slimy in one way or another (an in cahoots with the politicians).

How do we get the banks to start lending again? How do we get corporations to hire? If you and I can figure that out, wouldn't that be amazing?

Newday,

Your experience in California gives you greater insight than I have.

I'm not blaming President Obama for the immigration problem. I blame a host of people and issues. I didn't mean to come off emotional if I did. I'm aggravated when laws aren't enforced. I'm for truth in sentencing. I don't like shoplifters. I think speeders and people who run red lights are dangerous. I think regulators should do their jobs and regulate. I think Arizona should be able to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and if that means making up a new one that allows them to do that, good for them.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad except President Obama is so mad and divisive over so many. The evil insurance companies. The doctors who scam you for unnecessary tests. (If I'm sick, I want my doctor to run every test imaginable on me!) The Republican party, which represent a good chunk of the country.

We need to come together as a nation. Fighting each other and suing each other is getting so old.

B. Honest.

My name is misspelled quite frequently. It always sounds the same when spoken, so no worries!

We need right wing talk radio and Fox news to counterbalance Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews and MSNBC. Together we find balance. We have to listen to both sides and form our own opinions. At least, that's what I try to do. That's what you're doing talking to me!

I do wish the Republicans would go to the table. I wish the Democrats would welcome them. I wish President Obama could bring us all together.

There's hope, though! I'm a die hard, card carrying, NRA supporting, pro choice, capitalist, center right Republican disgusted with our self appointed leaders (Boehner, McConnell, Palin). You and I and Paul, and John and Newday are all concerned about the same things. We have different solutions, but we're "talking!" I hope you see that not all Republicans are uncaring and bad.

Kids, I have to go. I have to clean, shop and do some cooking, try to make some money and do my part to contribute to our economy.

I'll try to peek in later if you all are still here. If not, have a glorious weekend! It was really good talking with you all. Let's do it again soon!

Candice, I think you suffer from some misapprehension as to what this suit is about, and what President Obama has tried to do to make sure that health insurance is available to all. This suit, if and when the Feds file it, is not the civil suit where they ask for money and clog up the court system with something frivolous. They will be asking a very important question: to wit: is immigration policy and border enforcement a reserved power to the Feds, and does this state law infringe upon that reserved power." In my never to be humble opinion, they are not only entitled to ask, they are OBLIGATED to ask the court to clarify that for all concerned. As to the insurance companies, I am absolutely mystified as to why you would want to protect them. EVERY TIME YOUR DOCTOR WANTS TO RUN A TEST, HE GETS TO FIGHT IT OUT WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY! If the insurance company does not agree that test is vital, guess who pays? You do. The insurance company also has the right to drop your coverage any freaking time they want, if they think you are costing them too much money. What the Health Care Reform law does is takes that power away, people who are denied coverage now for pre existing conditions will be able to get covered. Why would you think that is a bad thing? The goal is to make health care less expensive, since hospitals and doctors will get paid, instead of having people show up at an Emergency Room, having waited until they are really sick, having it cost a bunch to try to help them, and then not be able to recover the money. What happens is they recover the money by passing that cost on to those with insurance, which raises everyone's cost. You blame the wrong person for the divisiveness, you have only to look at the Republican leadership to find out who is causing the polarization of this country. I think I am considerably older than you, I still remember when Tip O'Neill and President Reagan never let politics interfere with having a social time together, which caused them to be friends. That doesn't happen now.

Candice

I will hold back, unlike newdayDawning, from calling you disingenuous. You seem to be purposefully missing the point. You telling me what you are hearing from the people who first profitted from the fraud and now are hesitant to take part in the solution ,( when no one has even as yet suggested that the false profits they now hoard should have to be returned to the treasury for national debt reduction), doesn't add much of value to the discussion. Do you really think that the fraudsters, and the banksters, are going to tell you the truth about why they are hesitant to re-invest the money they have essentially stolen, back into the economy? They are sitting on piles of money and holding title to 99% of everything of value left in this world, what is left over to invest in that will grow the collective economic pie? If you want to motivate them to "work" you have to remove their ill-gotten-gain and give them an opportunity to do it over legitimately this time. Otherwise you are just an enabler to the cover-up of the "crime". The false prosperity of the past is not the same animal as what we have created for ourselves here in the GLOBAL ECONOMY. Let's not compare apples to oranges.

Paul and Newday,

Again, I have to go. I'll try to be back later tonight, Paul, to defend my position or make my point clearer. I understand what you're saying.

Newday - I agree with many parts of the healthcare bill - pre-existing conditions, costs, insurance company practices. But there's a lot wrong with it too. I'm well aware of the constitutionality issues with the Arizona law. I'm not arguing with you, you know, but can't get into it now.

Maybe we can pursue those thoughts later.

In the meantime, enjoy this beautiful day!

Thanks, you too. I look forward to your return.

Go Feisty. This is my main point. Keep hitting them with the truth, often and hard. If it is true that the more often you tell a lie (and the bigger the better) people will believe it, then imagine what we can do with the TRUTH!!!!

I know the truth if often a harder sell, but I have to believe in something during this mess.

Hiya Retired...

Reminds me of that old Jack Nicholson line... YOU can't handle the TRUTH!

People are much more content being spoon fed BS than getting involved and doing some freakin research!

The housing bubble, which continues unabated (and for some reason continues to be completely ignored) is courtesy of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. And now no document loans are coming back.

Ignoring the ongoing issues with Freddie and Fannie are making everything much worse by increasing the general feeling of uncertainty that is out there in the business community.

Plus it may help if the Congress (the first actually defined job of the House) passed an actual budget.

Spank- I would think that by now, even you would know that the crisis wasn't created so much by an 'average Joe' trying to leverage his meager income to buy a house at a rate of, say, 1 to 1.5, but the fat cats that wanted to get even fatter by leveraging those poor loans at a rate of, say, 40 to 1!

As ususal, a little dishonesty from the right.

spanky, your description of the housing bubble is so limited it's scary. while fnma and freddie mac need to be addressed, it is one small piece of this issue (which is fairly complex with a lot of players and shortcomings accordingly). to say no doc etc... is like saying the team lost the football game 55 to 0 because the corner got beat in the 4th qtr for the final touchdown. please go back and research it a little further.

i agree with drive by-although i would say either a little dishonesty or maybe a lack of understanding of a complex issue. please try again

Drive -by - Too many loans to folks who would never have qualified under the old mortgage rules (20% down, mandatory credit scores, etc .). Too many non traditional loan schemes so as to allow the un qualified to qaulify. The thought was too many minorities and poor couldn't other wise qualify. I deal with the fallout of the mortgage crisis everyday in SO. Cal. and in AZ.

But the I'm sure you and Glen are involved in real estate, and bankruptcy issues on a daily basis like I do. I have personally dealt with too many barrowers who bought $250,000 plus homes on a incomes of less than $50,000 per year. Certainly those are not "fat cats."

Also. a large amount of the flipping and churing of real estate was done by the "little guy" real estate agents. They'd buy and sell to each other to get comissions for them and their inside mortgage brokers because it was so easy to get finacing due solely to Frannie and Freddie guarantees. Those agencies have to be corrected or we the taxpaying innocents (those who pay their mortgage and stuck with traditional fixed mortgages) will forever be on the hook. But for some odd reason Dodd and Frand omitted them from then shiny new bill. Why is that? Or is that the dishonesty?

Spank-

By Fat Cats, I dind't mean those folks you mention (although, I agree that a lot of Realtors could have counseled their clients with a lot more honesty, and a lot of mortgage brokers could have screened their underwriters' work a little closer). I meant those in the upper-eschelons that packaged and re-packaged the lousy loans in an attemt to 'cut a fat hog' before it all fell in.

Don't get me wrong- plenty of blame to go around, but we need to make sure we shine the light into ALL the corners.

actually, spanky, i have been in the mortgage industry for 19 years. actually 19 and a half (so wrong there). i am guessing that i probably understand this more than yourself. you are mixing the data in your discussion and it is incorrect. your second sentence mentions non traditional mtgs. yet you reference fnma and freddie. the majority of non traditional mtg's were backed by the investment banks (bear stearns, etc..), not fnma and freddie. you mention minorities and the poor. they would have most likely gone under fha not fnma or freddie (unless they got an EA or Alt A loan). you are jumbling your talking points and might be too involved on the front end and might not understand the back end packaging, hedging and selling that fell apart. you also do not mention the credit default swaps and AIG (along with moody's etc.. and their calling deals triple A when they really were not). like i said there are a lot of moving pieces and to look at one is incorrect.

Glen and Drive-By,

I get your point about not pointing to 1 cause as the reason we're in this mess. However, I find it funny that you pounce on Spanky but you don't pounce on the countless liberal posters on this blog who continously blame Bush for everything. Aren't they doing the same thing?

There were many moving parts that led to the housing bubble, but Fannie and Freddie were much more than "one small piece" of the problem. The core issue was bad mortgage loans. Bad loans that were packaged, sold and bought in large quantities by actors like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Packages of bad loans that passed muster with credit rating agencies like Moody's and were insured by AIG. Bad loans that were originated by brokers and banks who only wanted to make a buck, and accepted by greedy consumers who wanted to live beyond their means. All of this fueled the housing bubble, but the actions of Fannie and Freddie made everything worse.

The issue is that in the midst of the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards to get in on the action. That just reinforced the behavior of private sector actors who now had a really big buyer for the junk loans they were making. That made a bad problem even worse and led directly to putting today's taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars (and still counting) to cover Fannie and Freddie losses.

So while it's not fair to blame Fannie and Freddie for creating the housing bubble, it's entirely fair to point out they were key players in enabling that bubble to grow ever larger.

lynchmob, i take the blaming of george bush as part of the territory. we heard "it was clinton's fault" for 3 years or so. i think the issue with george bush is not himself, but the policies he followed through on. one of which is deregulation. a lot of this mess is due to a deregulation overload. deregulation and a hands off government is like "family values" for the republicans. every time a family values guy gets caught doing something not family values like, people get upset. i also find it funny that guys like you can't call out hypocracy. spanky mentioned 20% down. who is to say? that sounds like a canadian gov't regulation. you are trying to have it both ways. regarding regulation and deregulation.

Bill Fairfax

Please explain how a ratings agency, like Moody's, can erroneously rate junk as AAA and not be held accountable for their error? If the thing you are rating is too complicated for you to understand its risk quotient then you do not give it a AAA rating, unless you are in the business of defrauding the world.

Well the Glen, given you background you certainly must understand that my concerns about Freddie and Fannie are not based at all upon "a little dishonesty" or "a lack of understanding of a complex issues." As someone in the mortgage industry you certainly must know the signifigant and direct involvement of those in the mortgage and real estate industries. In fact it's been my experience that the real estate agents and mortgage brokers did a signigfigant amount of harm, profited widely, and are now by and large flat broke and unemployed. That is those that are not being hunted down for fraud, negligence and other issues.

Blame Bush all you want, fact is Freddie and Frannie are Frank and Dodd's creations, and Frank vouched for their soundness less than two years ago. Millions of the bad mortgages would never have been written absent the governments' guarantees. Back in the days before Freddie and Fannie the 20% down and other requirements were in place to protect the lenders. Now they don't need protection, they have the full faith and credit of the good old USA. These are not "regulations" rather contractual obligations which are part of all transactions, right Glenn?

Hands on or off the fact is the government is simply imcompetent to reffectively regulate anything anyway. Just look at the SEC. They were too busy surfing porn 8-10 hours a day to notice the big crash. The MMA was in place, yet failed to regulate effectively in the Gulf. In fact, the MMA ignored its regulations and issued exemptions to BP. Here Freddie and Fannie are a dis-incentive for the lenders to seek adequate protection for themselves, that is when Frank isn't mandating that the loans be made regardless of income. Giggity, Giggity.

Spanky

You seem to forget that most of Fannie and Freddy's probs came from the fact that they were required by law to take the bad loans that the hucksters in the banks and real estate offices handed them, they did not solicit those loans, but were required to service them. There is a huge difference there, they were HANDED the bad debt and required to take it.

fnma was not created by dodd and frank. they do have a lot of problems, we know that. but what is the solution? they were generally profitable prior to the crash. they also provide liquidity to the market. not sure heading down the private sector path is the way to go with that one either. maybe we can ask bear stearns who that worked out. without the liquidity they provide, you might see higher interest rates for mortgages. then you would be complaining about your 10% mortgage.

i actually only blame bush as it relates to the sec and their ability to let investment banks leverage themselves like crazy. i do think dodd and frank were asleep at the switch (as was all of congress). i really blame greenspan and his inability to regulate derivitaves. that let the credit default swap craze take effect (false sense of security). then the subprime market brough down the conforming market (fnma). add in moody's etc... and we had a recipe for disaster. and unfortunately, it will all happen again.

and, while I agree with you about Greenspan - nothing was more riveting than his testimony where he ADMITTED that his decades of theory were proven wrong. I'll have to find the quote over the weekend; but I am not kidding when I tell you I actually GASPED at his admission.

That's the problem with a theory - the reality is often nowhere close to the projected outcomes. 'trickle down' - my ASS. and with different punctuation you get an entirely different meaning!

Spanky. You've been listening to the right wing media talking heads too long. Not only were Fannie and Freddie required to absorb the bad bank loans but the GOPers were in charge from 1995 through 2006, and democrats could not get them to fix the problem! So it is easy to blame Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank but it's no deal--they were in the minority on the Finance Committees.

Jody? "democrats could not get them to fix the problem!" What are you talking about, and please stop with the "right wing talking points" mantra. This is a discussion about economics. The bankruptcy courts and authorities are not based upon anyone's "talking points."

Freddie and Frannie should never have been created in the first place.

The liquidity of which Glen speaks is nothing more than tax dollars. If there would have been no "market" for the bad loans, and the private banks would not have risked their money. That 20% down requirement didn't go away until fairly recently. And regardless of when or what political party was in power at the time, Fannie and Freddie are in horrible shape. The issue I have is the Dodd/Frank bill pretends they do not exist. Of course the entire congress continues to pretend that the budget does not exist, which is just poor economis that can only lead to bad things.

spanky, one final item before i go. there will always be a market for bad loans. it just needs to come with a correct price and not packaged as a brand new clean toy. the 20% requirement will go away within the next 10 years.

Dennis

Maybe they should make a commercial of the interview and a few other things like Shakedown Barton and It's not RNC War Steel.

Dennis, I had not heard that so thanks for posting. It is sad to watch the likes of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and realize that far too many people hang on their every word--they are the tyrants and they are the ones destroying our country.

Dennis,

I would think more of Mr. Inglis, if he had spoken out while he was still in office. That would have been the right and courageous thing to do.

There does not appear to be anyone, elected or otherwise, who would have the integrity, the testicular fortitude, to renounce these lies, half truths. Or denounce the despicable, hypocritical behaviour of family values elected officials at the time of their misbehaviour.

to jody, I thought obama,pelosi,and reid were runnig this country,I mean destroying this country how can tv host and radio host run a country if thats the case then obama is a lot weaker than he seems to let tv hosr run the country thats all the dems can do is blame it on tv and radio.

Unfortunately CA, I have to agree with you although it continues to make the case that we have so many uninformed voters who will take their revenge out on anyone that they feel is responsible rather than taking a breath and looking at the realities that surround them.

The U.S. was headed in the wrong direction long before President Obama took office and it is too bad that the situation we are in has taken a toll on this nation to the point that the guilty stand a chance to get back into office and take us back to those same policies and ideas.

I am truly concerned about the citizens of this nation.

K Mac:

You guys need to kill the "Uninformed" voters mantra. People have the right to vote for ANYONE they please. Most people vote straight ticket anyway. This is one of the reasons their are so many Democrats in Congress. If it was a way to measure, I bet most of those Dems elected in 2008 was elected totally through straight ticket voting due to Obama being at the top.

ITM, what else do you call it? Remember during the health care debate how the Republicans, following the leadership of Sarah Palin, made the false claims that there would be "death panels" included in the bill when actually there were none? The Tea Party along with most other voters took it and ran with it and would not try to find out for themselves because, " the bill was too long with too many pages to read". I submit that if they really wanted to know the real details they would have looked for themselves. Just one example of emotions vs. informing themselves.

ITM you are right the seperation is along party lines, I have spent most of my life as a republican but I find it hard to vote for a person even with good intentions that is in lock step with the rep. party. As a moderate my party has as much as told me that I am against them. As for the voters being uninformed it is true they can vote for who they like but that does not mean you should vote for someone becasue he will allow you to keep your AK-47. I truely believe that if the followers of Palin actually listened to her they would be vary worried if she was the president or vice president.

Deficits and the governments' ability to service its existing debt also will effect all future elections. Any candidate that cannot recognize the effect of the debt on both short and long term viability is in for a difficult road to re-election.

$13 TRILLION has consequences, and those consequences are not good.

Spanky, I agree with you; but WHERE THE HECK were these deficit hawks from 2001-2008? I mean that seriously.

The first 11.5 Trillion were okay but that LAST 1.5 Trillion is what tipped the scale? seriously? Does that sound ludicrous to anyone else but me?

It has to stop. Just pointing out that deficits existed before doesn't do anyone any good. Was it ridiculous to have deficits before. Yes. But they are now getting much bigger.

I live in fabulous California. Always over budget. Its going down under the weight of the deficit. So too will the US. And the solution is straightforward, but apparently impossible with the current politicians - stop spending more than you have. I have to live withn my means, you do, why don't they?

well, stopping the deficits in peacetime and the best of conditions is certainly ideal (why again didn't the 1st six years of the W administration do that?)

But this spending was necessary to stave off a much graver disaster. Pretending that all deficits are created equal and all government spending is created equal isn't entirely honest. Stoking the fear and hatred and playing to the basal instincts of constituencies during already troubled times DOES NOT help the situation.

fortunately these people are already in the white house destroying our future,so we dont have to feel guilty when we run them out.

Amy:

I have always found that politics and religion are two subjects to avoid during family reunions. Best to just smile and stay out of the conversation. Or, you could possibly try one simple come back if you find that their criticisms are just so severe you can't ignore them. Just remind them of the alternative. We could have had Sarah Palin as our V.P. If some still want to argue because they are Palin supporters then it is best just to get out of the conversation. You can't have a good discussion, debate or arguement with fools.

Best to just smile and stay out of the conversation.

CA, I have come around to the same conclusion. Whether it be friends, family, co-workers. Just smile and nod. {Actually I learned this tactic from talking with Yankees fans over the years. Just tell them yes, the Yankees are the best thing to happen to this country since the US Constitution. lol}

It's funny, I can't believe my rellies are so rightwing, and they can't believe I'm not. I do feel compelled to stand up for Obama, because the Republican echo chamber makes folks think there are more Tea Partier types than Democrats, and that's not even close to reality. Unfortunately my BROTHER thinks Sarah Palin is just great, so that argument doesn't work with him. If you see anything in the news about a family cookout in Maine getting out of hand, that will be us.

Amy:

If your rellies think Sarah Palin is great then just stay out of the conversation. You may want to step aside for a moment, pull out a kleenex and wipe away the tears. Then when the rellies step up and ask what is wrong just say that you are crying for them and leave it at that.

Amy - I have the same problem with my relatives. So I go to factcheck.org and print out all pertinent data on Obama and the Republicans. As soon as a subject is brought up I check my little file to tell them the truth. Used to use Snopes but than someone said that they were really progressives and why should we believe that junk. Interestingly enough factcheck did a factcheck on Snopes and the couple that runs Snopes - the wife is from Canada and the husband back in 2000 was a registered Republican.

When people gang up on you - it's always nice to have the real facts in your hands.

Amy - I totally agree that our President is doing a great job. Good luck talking with your relatives who may not like President Obama...just remember that those of us who support our President are in the majority and the GOP supporters are in the minority.

Elise:

Amy says her rellies like and support Palin. You can't discuss or argue poltical points or facts with people who like and support Palin. I normally try not to attack a person on the opposite end of my political views as much as I have Palin, but this woman gets no quarter. None. She is a complete idiot, not to mention one of the most divisive and ignorant people on the politcal scene.

Perhaps Amy could ask her relatives if Palin has yet purchased a plane ticket for the little Dutch Boy and his thumb that she has recommended the U.S. consult with to plug the leak in the gulf.

CA - True story...

I was having dinner about a month ago with a couple of gay male acquaintances. Somewhere in the conversation politics came up and they admitted they were Republican. So naturally I was intrigued and asked why they supported that agenda giving the right wings view of their lifestyle.

One was telling me he was a capitalist (which I was trying to listen to) when the other one chimed in that he thought Bible Spice was MORE than qualified to be not just VP but President as well...

Needless to say I was DONE with THAT conversation and decided that another drink (or two) was in order... :0)

I did come away sad & confused because I TRULY wanted to hear why they chose to vote the way they do and instead all I got was Grama Grizzly gibberish!

I cannot listen to anyone who thinks that woman is remotely qualified seriously!

CA - Not always able to read everyone's posts (long list of those that I avoid!) so I wasn't aware of the Palin fact for Amy. However, I too have relatives that like Palin. I totally agree with your assessment of her! But you are right you can not discuss her with people that support her. One relative kept shouting at me before I was even able to get at the good parts of her ineptness - SHOUTING at me - I got a water gun and doused him pretty good.

K2mm:

Where do you get this majority from? What do you have to support that assumption.

I would go to say the country is about 48-48 with 4% confused.

Be careful Elise of what circles you chose to discuss your political views. I'm sure your relatives would never mean you any harm, but if you pull that water gun tactic on the wrong person or group of people there are some who are crazy enough to reciprocate, and their guns won't be holding water.

Amy,

We think alike. Keep it coming...

"When people gang up on you - it's always nice to have the real facts in your hands."

Elise- I agree 100%. Unless you are Rachel Maddow, and try this. Then, dickweeds like Michael Savidge tell the Playboy interviewer your problem is 'you're unattractive'. What a guy. What a completley irrelevant, guy. But then again, he IS a rightie.

Fiesty:

There are many analogies that Palin reminds me of and vice versa. I was thinking of one the other night while watching Dances With Wolves. There is a scene where soildiers are transporting Kevin Costner in a wagon to be hung for treason because he befriended the Indians. Along the route the soldiers spotted a wolf that Costner had also befriended. The wolf was not harming anyone and was not a danger to the soldiers. In fact the wolf just stood there and did not try to hide or run. But they stopped the wagon long enough to take pot shots at the wolf while laughing and enjoying the fact they were about to kill something. Well, they did kill the wolf. Now take Palin from her helicopter supported hunts of wolves and place her in that wagon with Costner and the soldiers. Would she have tried to defend Costner and his friend the wolf or would she have participated in the childish and ignorant game of attempting to kill the wolf that meant no harm to her? I think you know the answer to that.

Good Luck to you Amy!

There goes ITM again, practicing math without a license:

48% Dem

4% Undecided

48% Confused

(just calling it like I see it!)

When confronted with the juvenile talking blathering points of the Repubs I usually just say oh, that is so trivial and petty! It usually stops the conversation. Same response with stupid e-mails.

Wow! Thanks for all the great advice.

I did just read a recent Gallup pole that said 46% of Americans lean or are Democrats, 43% Republican and the rest are Independent. What's astonishing to me, is the same poll said 52% leaned or were Democratic in March 09 vs 39% Republican. I guess its those swing voters that keep the rest of us arguing in public.

Amy, I have the same problem with many of my relatives and friends, hell, I live in Texas. I find that if they already know where you stand then just ignore them and let them keep spouting stupidity while you just look at them with a blank stare. They are trying to engage you into trying to defend your views so they can cut you off with more stupidity. But I have found that if you just continue that blank stare like you have'nt heard a word they've said then it becomes quite comical to watch all of them trying to cut each other off from each other's silly rants. I actually believe I have been able to get some of my relatives and friends to begin questioning each other validities because while I have remained silent, they actually get to hear themselves and their own irrational behavior while quitely acknowledging my blank stare. Sometimes it is better to let them hear their own jibberish to allow them the opportunity to self reflect in what they have just said. Just knowing where I have stood in the past, I believe have led some of them to doubt their beliefs. Good luck though, it is HARD not to respond!

You got it Bev... ;0)

Hi ya Beverly:

I hope you are right but I have included in my hypothesis, theory, whatever you want to call it, that all important election factor called the intelligence, maturity and knowledgable level of your average Amercian voter. Most (not all) vote on emotion Beverly, not based on an informed conclusion following study of the facts. The republicans are very good at laying the blame on their opponent whether that person is responsible or not. If the economy has not improved and the unemployment rate has not come down your average voter (helped along by the republican attacks) will go into that voting booth blaming Obama.

One more thing Beverly:

I don't know about the West, North or East but let me tell you how bad it is here in the South. First let me preface this by saying that I remember the grief GW Bush took while in office and the attacks he was under while in office. But I do not recall seeing professionally created biil boards or signs going up along roads and highways with less than favorable pictures of Bush on the signs/billboards accompanied by statements calling for complete oppostion to Bush because he was an enemy of America.

Yet I have personally observed (actually to my surprise, shock and dismay) professionally developed signs and bill boards with less than favorable drawings or pictures of Obama accompanied by statements calling for people to resist Obama's attempts to destroy our nation. These are not home-made signs mind you or any type of election period/year campaign signs, but professionally created signs placed in front of businesses and on bill boards along various highways and roadways. I have never seen anything like it. Never.

Simply Amazing isn't C.A. I really haven"t seen the like since back on the late sixties early seventies down in Carolina as regards certain groups of people. Most of those came courtesy of the Klan.

I agree with you Beverly. The economic troubles are also not George Bush's fault. Afterall, he's just one person.

And what the hell is the deal with all those people opposing Obama? They must all be racists. Just like all those disgusting signs and posters I saw depicting GWB as a monkey and a Nazi for the better part of 8 years. I guess all those were just people telling it like it is.

I keep telling you people. After all those years of calling Bush every name in the book and ripping him to shreds every chance you got, did you really think that we were going to let you all slide once a DEm got in the White House? The shoe is now on the other foot. Wear it and quit your damn whining. Take your medicine and shut up. Remember: Dissent is patriotic.*

* Expires 01-20-09.

Well Independent.

Some on the right like to compare the current hatred some have for Obama to that directed at GW Bush when he was President. But I am not buying it. I have been around for a few Presdencies, am not the brightest person in the world yet not stupid either, and I can assure anyone, from my observations, the level and intensity of hate some may have had for GW Bush is nothing compared to what is out there among some towards Obama. Nothing like it. I for one had a deep dislike for GW Bush, his lack of intelligence, his habit of allowing Cheney to run his administration and his reaction and handling of 911 (invading Iraq), but I also said I could sit down with GW on his ranch and have a few beers and discuss our differences, followed by helping him mend a few fences on his ranch. But the hatred I see for Obama goes much deeper, is much more intense and personal by people who cannot divide their dislike for Obama's agenda and polciies from hating him personnally as well. And I did not say anything about this being due to Obama's race so don't anyone respond with the suggestion I am race baiting. I am not. Although I will say there are those who do not like Obama because he is Black. I don't have to offer proof of that. I hear it from people I am acquainted with in my area. They tell me that is the case for them.

Yeh C.A. I've been around the block and down the pike a few years myself and I just haven't seen anything like it and I don't buy the argument that this was done to so and so either. The signs that I saw down there back then were definitely racist but that was also a sign of the times and turmoil of that period. What I'm seeing and hearing now has some roots in Racism but past that are just hating for hating sake like a spoiled child that's being denied his way. Thanks for the conversation last afternoon BTW it helped

Uh, CUF- rearding calling him names and all the ripping to shreds: Bush EARNED it.

Big difference.

Need more Reynolds Wrap on aisle 8!

CLara,

See if you can make it the non-stick foil. I know that the chemical that they use to prevent sticking helps boost the signals that they receive through the hats. Maybe they can make a little more sense of what is coming through if we boost the signal strength a little.

Forget the foil you guys. I think what needs to be applied is solid steel. As in 'an anvil'. Applied from a height of, say, 20 feet.

It's pretty easy to tell, though, that this guy has been listening to Hannity way too much the last few days.....

Hey! FR boasts it's very own supporter of voter intimidation (as long as the right/white people are being intimidated). B. Honest...where you B?

Just because the MSM refuses to cover this story doesn't mean it's a tin foil hat issue. You know, like "Bush lied us into war to enrich his oil buddies". That kind of tinfoil hat nonsense.

DL13 - you have a right to your own opinion, but wow are you wrong!

Hey DickLick13,

Let me guess: You're white, uneducated, born-again, and packing heat. Obama is right, we should apologized for "americans" like you.

Dang UpChuck, vomiting your twisted little lies all over again, debunked as they are. Like I told ye before, drop the crack pipe and get some fresh air, before you lost your last brain cell!!

Enrique,

You seem surprised by this fact. That is how they 'manage'. Distract, Distort, Demean,...it's a way of life for the Party of NO.

Lying comes as naturally to the rightards as breathing!

Umm, Daniel,

Bush put forth TWO (count them TWO) packages ACTUALLY totalling (wait for it)

$168B for release 1.0 (February 2008)

$700B for release 2.0 (October 2008)

________________

$868 BILLION Dollars

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814/

Personally I LOVE this photo of McConJob and Boner looking on gleefully.

So in 2008 $868 Billion dollars was nothing; but in 2009 $787 Billion is the END OF THE WORLD?

Really? We need some more Reynolds Wrap over here, folks.

Such idiocy can't be debated. But,

trillion dollar debt? 2 wars with tax cuts for the rich had nothing to do with that?

Health care - America was all for it when they elected the president. they turned when the right wing spin machine started spewing their death panel lies and the dems didn't come out swinging harder sooner. Also, it didn't go far enough.

Terrorist buddy and spiritual leader - half-gov Palin's husband is a secessionist and she stays married to him. She must hate America, too.

Hey Danny boy,

Be honest, you never had a great idea in your life - am I right ?

Someone tell me, What is rich? 250k? 200k? 150k? Why am I getting nickle and dimed to death?

Rick, your health care statement is false unles you're the 15% that wanted it.

Oh, I would also like to know when they believe that the federal deficit began to register over a $1 trillion deficit. Was it before or after President Obama took office?

Thei idea is to balance the budget by cutting taxes.

(hey, is it their fault that they learned math by being home schooled at the local trailer park?)

That answer is easy: started 01-20-09; solution - cut taxes for the rich, deregulate any business, cut more taxes.

How about Palin's witchcraft preacher? Remember that video footage?

M.Fisher, My husband was asking exactly the same thing the other day. So, Fox News Fans, what do you have to say about that?

You won't hear one damned peep, because '"that's the way they roll" over there at Fox.

Think about this, too- It's not just about it being hotter than normal at one place, and colder at another. Iowa has suffered some pretty severe flooding in recent years. 1993, year before last, and again this year. Why? Because a warmer-than-normal spot way out in the Pacific Ocean (el Nino). Climate change is bunk? Me- I don't know, but in light of what I just wrote about, I'd say we should at least consider it, instead of claiming it's a 'move by the whack-o's to gain power". What the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway?? It makes no sense whatsoever, but you hear pri*ks like Hannity and Limbaugh say it all the time.

On Faux News and Global Warming

The oddest thing about their stupidity on the subject was the lack of understanding that snow in Washington D.C. in the winter is not an indication of lower than normal temperatures. How could anyone at a real News agency overlook that fact.

Along with a trillion in spending on the two Unfunded wars we are still in.

Ah, yes. The wars. It's true that these are Bush policies that Obama chose to continue, but he doesn't really have any choice. The public may be against the wars now, but if he were to pull the troops out and let the insurgents take over either Iraq or Afghanistan, you can be certain that the war-mongering Republicans and their corporate media allies would work hard to create a "firestorm" of "public outrage" at Obama "cutting and running."

BTW: I agree with Michael Steele: the Afghanistan war probably cannot be won. He actually makes sense sometimes when he forgets that he's the official spokesman for the Silly Party.

I hesitate to reply. The problems we face are no accident. The solutions being offered by both sides are flawed, deliberately. They are trying to get us to fight amongst ourselves, while they run off with the wealth of this nation. The haters have simply misdirected their anger.